Advertisement

Conclusions

  • Willem Frederik van Eekelen

Abstract

Discussions of the boundary dispute often put a somewhat exaggerated emphasis on the Indian predicament of being forced to maintain frontiers inherited from British imperialism. Most of the new countries were faced with similar circumstances and took it as a matter of course that their administration should cover the entire territory left by their colonial masters. Moreover, Nehru himself has pointed out that the borders of China also were the result of prolonged and violent conquest.1 Yet it has taken India many years to shed her apologetic attitude. Emotional and imprecise slogans condemning colonialism as “permanent aggression” had produced a false impression of a dilemma concerning the legitimacy of the territorial legacy.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Indian Policy Peaceful Coexistence Border Dispute Boundary Dispute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kripalani, J. B., “For principled neutrality,” Foreign Affairs, 38 (1959) 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  • Willem Frederik van Eekelen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations